On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 09:44 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 14:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > From item #3: > > > """ > > > When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the > > > static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also > > > have to have a virtual Provide for the *-static and *-static-noshared > > > packages: > > > """ > > > > > > It seems like we should only have a Provide for *-static-noshared as > > > this is a special case of item #2. Thoughts on that? > > > > > > > I actually think we only should have a Provide for *-static, so that people who > > want to use static libs now and in the future (when there may be a shared > > version) , can guarantee they will get the static version by BuildRequiring the > > -static, since very few packages will ever have a real *-static-noshared, > > having a virtual provides for this feels wrong. > > The problem is two-fold: > > 1. We want to be able to track when packages are building against static > libraries, whether they are static or static-noshared. What for? IMO this is simply bureaucracy. > 2. When a package goes from only providing static libraries to providing > some shared libraries (but not all), we want to be able to track these. But this isn't what your proposal does. Your proposal pesters/pollutes library-clients *.specs with a library's provider's packaging details, these library-clients are not interested in. > If we have these packages BuildRequire the static provide, that won't be > correct anymore (we want them to use the shared libraries + > static-noshared). > > Realistically, what Toshio says is correct, we strictly speaking only > need the Provide for *-static-noshared there. I kept the other *-static > provide since it is how we used to do it. This is something completely different. Here, you seem to be talking about "Additionally providing *-static-noshared" and NOT to pester library-clients with BR: *-static-nonshared". In real world, no library-client who needs a static library, needs know if this library is being provided "*-static-noshared" or "*-static". => Such kind of Provides is useless to the library-client. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
